Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This post may be completely stupid or a good idea, I'll leave you to decide.

When I read the army lists that people make, the ones that are considered to be good lists (recieve good comments) all look the same for that army compared with everyone elses lists. Whenever someone posts an army list that deviates even slightly outside the accepted "normal" competitive list for that army, usually they recieve criticism. One guy posted an IG army where every platoon and squad had a different mix of weapons. His idea was that he could put each unit in the situation it would best perform and that diversity of weapons could be a real advantage. Nobody liked his list, and no one really gave a good reason why, other than that he didn't go with the usual anti-MEQ las/plas or whatever.

This to me seems strange. In a game as complicated as 40k, I wonder how valid advice such as "never take such and such unit" or "all but this wargear is useless" etc. There's probably some degree of truth to every piece of common advice (or it wouldn't be common), but at the same time a large part of it may simply be a group think mentality where everyone recieves the same advice and passes it on.

Not to mention, if such advice is always true, then the game looks a bit bleaker, in the sense that I might see a cool unit that I want to include, like the sanctioned psyker, but then immediately get told "take that if you want to lose." Or I'll look at all this cool looking wargear options for officers like the macharian cross or tank upgrades like track guards and get told "sorry buddy, all worthless, smoke launchers/extra armor only."

How bleak indeed! Psykers are cool man! And the IG tanks look way cooler with track guards, dozer blades, etc! Is it really the case that you must chose between the army you WANT to play and the army that actually stands the chance of winning?

I play Imperial Guard and my experience is, no matter what army list I take, whether it's the one recommended as competitive one I designed myself, I always lose. But I've never really deviated very much from standard IG lists. The basic "advice" for IG is that almost all the units are useless.

All advisors (priests, psykers, commissars), useless. Ogryns, useless. Stormtroopers, useless. Techpriests and servitors, useless. Sentinels, useless. Chimeras, useless. Rough Riders, hunting lances only or useless. That's like half the army that is completely off limits...for what reason exactly?

Maybe if people weren't so limited in their thinking about IG more creative and innovative IG armies would be tried and maybe there would be better results on the board. Not saying for sure but it could happen. I just faced a necron army at 1850 points where he deepstriked 3 monoliths onto each of the objectives, warriors poured out, and the gaus flux arc + rapid firing gauss annihilated my entire army in 3 turns. I had 2 AT squads with 6 lascannons, they ended up not even damaging 1 monolith (I did roll a 6 for damage result but some guy "refereeing" the game didn't like the fact that it bounced funny and told me to re-roll it..I shouldn't have caved.) Anyway, ever since I've been thinking about how IG could ever beat such a cheeseforce. Then I was browsing through the IG codex and noticed something.

This idea might make you lugh at first: rough riders, gave them meltaguns and meltabombs! People completely forget that they can take all kinds of weapons. A unit of around 80 points (vet sarge, 4 rrs, all with meltabombs) could move 6 inches, run d6, then assault 12" and completely anihilate a Monolith or a Land Raider. So if I took 3 these for the heavily underused guard Fast Attack choices (completely leaving open 3 Heavy Support and 3 Elite slots for russes and veterans), kept my army back, and kept the RRs in cover until the Monoliths landed...boom..they trot out on their suicide mission. Bye bye monoliths.

I bet if I put that idea in the average army list forum..they would just laugh at me and say "what? no hunting lances? you're a lunatic."

I think the bottom line is, people should put their own creativity first over mechanical advice about how to design a list. For example, nobody takes the Macharian Cross for IG but I'm brainstorming all kinds of sneaky things I can do with it and for only 20 points?

CowOnCrack wrote:

All advisors (priests, psykers, commissars), useless. Ogryns, useless. Stormtroopers, useless. Techpriests and servitors, useless. Sentinels, useless. Chimeras, useless. Rough Riders, hunting lances only or useless. That's like half the army that is completely off limits...for what reason exactly?

Deep Striking Sentinels might have a bit utility. Stormtroopers are essentially costly veterans with less special weapons. Ogryns... use them if you want. Rumor is Chimeras are getting a boost in the new codex coming up. The psyker has one ability that's decent, and 1/6 of the time he won't even get a power.

This idea might make you lugh at first: rough riders, gave them meltaguns and meltabombs! People completely forget that they can take all kinds of weapons. A unit of around 80 points (vet sarge, 4 rrs, all with meltabombs) could move 6 inches, run d6, then assault 12" and completely anihilate a Monolith or a Land Raider. So if I took 3 these for the heavily underused guard Fast Attack choices (completely leaving open 3 Heavy Support and 3 Elite slots for russes and veterans), kept my army back, and kept the RRs in cover until the Monoliths landed...boom..they trot out on their suicide mission. Bye bye monoliths.

Melta's don't get an extra die when rolling damage against monoliths. They would only roll 8+d6 for Armour pen.

Boom- goodbye rough riders.

Against land raiders/any other vehicle, if they deploy 24" withing a fleeting melta bomb squad... well, they get what they deserve. If they don't, they will drown that unit once it becomes a legitimate threat. The new line of sight rules tank their uses besides as hunting lance delivery systyms.

The thing is, an army needs to be able to handle all comers, but also needs to be able to dominate one or two of the three phases of the game: Movement, Shooting, or Assault. If you want a gunline, bring enough guns so you can wipe a tactical marine squad from the earth each turn. If you want heavy Armour, bring tons; or else all the anti-Armour weapons your opponent has will be poured into that one poor little tank. If you want your army to do something you need to make sure it is the undisputed champion of what its supposed to do. Redundancy is also extremely important, because you don't want you chances to win dashed because of something like your only assaulty unit or single tank was fragged.

I think the bottom line is, people should put their own creativity first over mechanical advice about how to design a list. For example, nobody takes the Macharian Cross for IG but I'm brainstorming all kinds of sneaky things I can do with it and for only 20 points?

Here's what you need to do: play lists with all your funny and weird combos. Things that work you keep, things that don't simply drop them.

edit: oops. double post!

CowOnCrack wrote:This post may be completely stupid or a good idea, I'll leave you to decide.

When I read the army lists that people make, the ones that are considered to be good lists (receive good comments) all look the same for that army compared with everyone else’s lists. Whenever someone posts an army list that deviates even slightly outside the accepted "normal" competitive list for that army, usually they receive criticism. One guy posted an IG army where every platoon and squad had a different mix of weapons. His idea was that he could put each unit in the situation it would best perform and that diversity of weapons could be a real advantage. Nobody liked his list, and no one really gave a good reason why, other than that he didn't go with the usual anti-MEQ las/plas or whatever.

A lot of people think that there are a few ways to play, and conform to those ideas. As far as guard goes, there is a synergy to having the best load out for your squads. The way IG works best is by shooting with overwhelming numbers because they shoot so poorly that they have to make every shot count. The reason why most IG players like the Las/Plas combo is because everything that you shoot at with a missile launcher, you will want to shoot at it with a lascanons. Imagine playing against 6 obliterators. How will you kill them if you do not take Las/Plas? How will you kill a deathwing army? If you are fighting against a mech army you want lascannons. You want the most strength and AP you can get your hands on and that means las/plas.

This to me seems strange. In a game as complicated as 40k, I wonder how valid advice such as "never take such and such unit" or "all but this wargear is useless" etc. There's probably some degree of truth to every piece of common advice (or it wouldn't be common), but at the same time a large part of it may simply be a group think mentality where everyone receives the same advice and passes it on.

As a general rule there are good units (that perform better than their point cost), OK units (that perform equal to their point cost), and bad units (that perform worse). You can take anything that you want to. No one is making you take any units, or army list that you do not want to. What most people try to do is steer them away from units, and ideas that experience has told them that do not work, and they try to help out others by sharing what they have learned.

Of course there are many play styles, and what does not work for some people will work for others.

Not to mention, if such advice is always true, then the game looks a bit bleaker, in the sense that I might see a cool unit that I want to include, like the sanctioned psyker, but then immediately get told "take that if you want to lose." Or I'll look at all this cool looking wargear options for officers like the macharian cross or tank upgrades like track guards and get told "sorry buddy, all worthless, smoke launchers/extra armor only."

How bleak indeed! Psykers are cool man! And the IG tanks look way cooler with track guards, dozer blades, etc! Is it really the case that you must chose between the army you WANT to play and the army that actually stands the chance of winning?

I have a saying…”It is better to look good than to fight good”. I like armies that have a theme and do not have all of the best units and options. I take some units just because they look good, but be warned, you will be at a slight disadvantage to others that take an optimized list.

I play Imperial Guard and my experience is, no matter what army list I take, whether it's the one recommended as competitive one I designed myself, I always lose. But I've never really deviated very much from standard IG lists. The basic "advice" for IG is that almost all the units are useless.

All advisors (priests, psykers, commissars), useless. Ogryns, useless. Stormtroopers, useless. Techpriests and servitors, useless. Sentinels, useless. Chimeras, useless. Rough Riders, hunting lances only or useless. That's like half the army that is completely off limits...for what reason exactly?

I like Chimeras. I think that Mech Guard is a powerful build in 5th edition. But yeah, those units suck. Just remember that every codex has half of the units in it that are not that good, and you will never see them on the table top.

Maybe if people weren't so limited in their thinking about IG more creative and innovative IG armies would be tried and maybe there would be better results on the board. Not saying for sure but it could happen. I just faced a necron army at 1850 points where he deepstriked 3 monoliths onto each of the objectives, warriors poured out, and the gaus flux arc + rapid firing gauss annihilated my entire army in 3 turns. I had 2 AT squads with 6 lascannons, they ended up not even damaging 1 monolith (I did roll a 6 for damage result but some guy "refereeing" the game didn't like the fact that it bounced funny and told me to re-roll it..I shouldn't have caved.) Anyway, ever since I've been thinking about how IG could ever beat such a cheeseforce. Then I was browsing through the IG codex and noticed something.

You see how an army of all lascanons would do better against an army with 3 monoliths? Your mistake though was shooting at the monoliths. A necron army with 3 monoliths has a low phase out number so how you beat it is by shooting everything at the necrons and going for a phase out.

This idea might make you laugh at first: rough riders, gave them meltaguns and meltabombs! People completely forget that they can take all kinds of weapons. A unit of around 80 points (vet sarge, 4 rrs, all with meltabombs) could move 6 inches, run d6, then assault 12" and completely annihilate a Monolith or a Land Raider. So if I took 3 these for the heavily underused guard Fast Attack choices (completely leaving open 3 Heavy Support and 3 Elite slots for russes and veterans), kept my army back, and kept the RRs in cover until the Monoliths landed...boom..they trot out on their suicide mission. Bye bye monoliths.

Monoliths have the living metal rule that said that you do not roll an extra D6 for penetration from melta weapons, so you are just hitting them with a strength 8 weapon. Good luck with that.

I bet if I put that idea in the average army list forum..they would just laugh at me and say "what? no hunting lances? you're a lunatic."

Well, they might. You can make units have many roles in your army. If you want them for counter-attack or taking out elite units then you give them hunting lances. If you want them for anti-tank you can equip them as you see fit. The thing that most people will say that they are not good as tank hunters is because you have other units in the army that can fill that roll, but not to many units for counter-assault.

I think the bottom line is, people should put their own creativity first over mechanical advice about how to design a list. For example, nobody takes the Macharian Cross for IG but I'm brainstorming all kinds of sneaky things I can do with it and for only 20 points?

In the end, you can take all kinds of things and it will not matter if you are a better general than your opponent.

Also there are a lot of creative ideas and combos out there that people have not thought about yet. To give you a couple of examples:

Up until a month or 2 ago no one had heard of the “Nob Biker” army. Some had an idea, and tried it out and it seems like it worked very well.

When the Eldar codex first came out I had the idea for a “MSV” army of Multiple Small Vehicles. It centered around 9 war walkers and 9 vypers. They told me that it would not work, and I tried it and I ended up winning 60% of my games with it. I abandoned it because that is too low of a win/loss ratio for me, but it showed me that it could work. Now that 5th edition has favorable vehicle and squadron rules, and that there is a lot less heavy weapons, and tank-hunting autocannons that it might be a viable army build.

So in the end you can play with what ever army you want to, and everyone has a different play style so what might work for others might not work for you and vise versa.

I'd like to echo Blackmoor's comments on playing what you want to play.
But I want to contest your "groupthink" accusation, because I think that just because a group of people have all seperately come to the conclusion that things work a certain way does not mean they are engaging in groupthink- it could be that that is how it works.
The problem with for example all the different loadouts is that an opponent can somewhat control you by being careful with which units he exposes to your units. With an army as unforgiving as Guard that is not good.
The problem with some of the other units you mentioned is that they are just plain bad. Psykers are awesome in concept and I love the models, but they suck hard. Ogryns are overcosted and not good at their role- in this game a close combat unit either has to do enough wounds to make saves irrelevant (mobs of orks) or ignore armour saves (with a fist or whatever) to stand a chance. Ogryns do neither, and they also are unfortunately vunerable to common weapons like powerfists and lascannons. Rough Riders could be useful but again they are over costed.
Etc.
It's not so much group think as a bunch of people having the same opinion.
It's a debate that goes on and on on these boards and probably will into the future.

I don't know jack about IG but I DO read the Lists section pretty regularly. A really easy way to avoid a lot of the comments that seem to irritate you is to state explicitly and repeatedly that you are working on a friendly or fluffy list.

All of the lists I see with these key words in the title and preface get the kind of input they're looking for, i.e. would it be considered cheesie in a friendly environment, does your theme fit your fluff target, etc.

And that's really how it should be, imo. If you want to put together a list that is going to roll through GTs, you SHOULD have people telling you what loadouts work and which don't. You SHOULD have people telling you to take out models that are in there because they look cool. There's nothing wrong with that in a friendly game but it's downright silly to do it if your primary (or only) goal is to win games.

Blackmoor wrote:When the Eldar codex first came out I had the idea for a “MSV” army of Multiple Small Vehicles. It centered around 9 war walkers and 9 vypers. They told me that it would not work, and I tried it and I ended up winning 60% of my games with it. I abandoned it because that is too low of a win/loss ratio for me, but it showed me that it could work. Now that 5th edition has favorable vehicle and squadron rules, and that there is a lot less heavy weapons, and tank-hunting autocannons that it might be a viable army build.

Not to thread jack, but 9 vypers and 9 War Walkers only have AV10, and the new squadron rules mean any immobilized result becomes a destroyed result. While this means nothing for the vypers, the war walkers are gonna get it in the rear from that. They do put out alot of firepowere though, and the 140 S6 shot army posted a few days ago capitalizes on this.

So I guess the real thing to blame is not so much group think as it is Games Workshop for creating cool miniatures with crappy rules. This leads me to some new ideas. I'm gonna create 2 threads, one with ideas for games workshop, and 1 for experimental game rules I've been working on. Thanks for the input guys.

Exactly. Make sure you do it in the proposed rules section!

whitedragon wrote:War Walkers only have AV10, and the new squadron rules mean any immobilized result becomes a destroyed result. While this means nothing for the vypers, the war walkers are gonna get it in the rear from that. They do put out alot of firepowere though, and the 140 S6 shot army posted a few days ago capitalizes on this.

And at the same time, his list capitalizes on the meta-game: that massed infantry armies are becoming more common and AV13+ vehicles are less the norm. Even though this is a powerful list, he only had 6 troop models. Even with guaranteed wins in kill point style missions, he can tie/lose 2/3 of his games to anyone with one surviving Troop model.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with your post in any way, just pointing out that an immediate common consensus (lots of shooting = good list) can have undercurrents (no troops = fail) that provide more meaningful context.

Nidzilla is unbeatable!

Except for Dark Eldar.

But nobody plays Dark Eldar!

A really easy way to avoid a lot of the comments that seem to irritate you is to state explicitly and repeatedly that you are working on a friendly or fluffy list.

While I agree with the sentiment here, I don't really get the point of posting a list for review if you don't want to powergame it.

If you're just building something you think is fun, then nobody can tell you what's fun for you better than you can. Why ask for advice at that point?

There's no question that there's groupthink going on, fads, popular lists, metagame, etc. etc.

That said, I also think that a genuinely good idea tends to immediately/quickly be integrated into the groupthink.

It's not a popularity contest...

For example, Stelek (poster here if you're unfamilliar) has a real talent for finding powerful combos, and he's also a very abrasive, difficult person. People aren't going to back his lists just because they like him. Quite the contrary. But when he takes note of how broken the combo of Sternguard, Combi-meltas and Drop Pods are, people notice, and it immediately becomes a piece of the power gaming canon (not that he is necessarily the first to notice it, but I think he may be the first on Dakka).

Same goes for Dakkafexes.

Same goes for Bike Nobs.

Etc.

So, generally what I'd say, is that while the "normal" competitive lists are not necessarily the only powerful builds, if somebody were to come up with a new one, I don't think there'd be any knee-jerk resistance to it. On the contrary, I think it'd quickly be adopted by anybody who happened to be looking for a power gamed list at the time.

So, I think that generally if people don't think a list is any good, it's probably not any good. People don't just say that because they're closed minded, they say it because if a list really has punch to it, it's obvious.

It only takes a few little things to turn the corner on powergaming. Take Sternguard in Pods. They weren't exactly news to me, but after Stelek posted the list, I went and looked closer. "Wait, they pay 5 points for Combi-meltas? And you can combat squad AFTER the pod drops? Ok, yeah, that's ridiculous." I just assumed they paid 10 points for Combi-weapons, like in the old Dex. I assumed that a squad in a Pod couldn't Combat Squad. Once it's shown to you, clearly it's good.

40k is a rather simple game. It isn't terribly hard to figure out powerful combination through simple mathematics.

There are multiple competitive builds for most armies (and roughly 0 competitive builds for IG, heh).

People are able to reach general conclusions about army choices based on both experience and simple math.

I don't see how you can possibly dismiss a comment like "IG advisiors suck" as groupthink when you weigh it against other options in the codex. The metagame is the way it is because the game designers either did poor work or they simply don't care about creating a balanced, competitive game (a little of both probably).

I have yet to see a genuinely good idea be rejected because it is not part of the "groupthink" process on this site.

MarvinGayeIsMyDaddy wrote:40k is a rather simple game. It isn't terribly hard to figure out powerful combination through simple mathematics.

There are multiple competitive builds for most armies (and roughly 0 competitive builds for IG, heh).

People are able to reach general conclusions about army choices based on both experience and simple math.

I don't see how you can possibly dismiss a comment like "IG advisiors suck" as groupthink when you weigh it against other options in the codex. The metagame is the way it is because the game designers either did poor work or they simply don't care about creating a balanced, competitive game (a little of both probably).

I have yet to see a genuinely good idea be rejected because it is not part of the "groupthink" process on this site.

The game is not balanced. Posts in this forum are usually for tournament lists.

Good thread...

first the specifics. The problem you are encountering with imperial guard has a lot to do with the age and the appropriateness of the codex.

To be perfectly clear. The codex is wildly outdated. It was published while 3rd edition was legal. It was never revised during the meat of 4th edition, and now we are many months into 5th edition. It, quite frankly, is one of the most underpowered, messy, outdated codecies games workshop makes.

If you want to win, against someone else who wants to win, then yes..... i'd say a good 80% of the units/items in the codex are completely useless.

If your goal is to have fun, and that fun does not involve excelling at a tournament, then there is no need to post your list on dakka. Army lists section is for C&C only. It's not show and tell.

Now the generalities... "groupthink" The advice people get from veterans is generally extremely harsh. It didn't start that way. But over the years it has evolved that way... this is an example of why.

poster- "I like ogryns"

veteran- "ogryns aren't really appropriate for your list. You would be better off spending the points somewhere else."

poster- "You aren't convincing me. I like ogryns. I'm taking them anyway."

I think we all just got so damn sick of that conversation, repeated ad infinitum, that the new response became...

veteran- "no sane person would ever take ogryn. They are completely unplayable."

Is it hyperbolic? Yes... Does it communicate a point more clearly to someone who might not really understand just how bad the unit is? Yes.

If a veteran poster, with tourney experience, and a record of strong list design/game play comes on to dakka and says.

veteran- "I've been looking at ogryn. I think I might have found something. Heres an experimental list that exploits blank and blank."

You won't see responses laced with hyperbole. You'll see a more measured discussion. Because the posters can be assured that the post author understands that in normal circumstances, ogryn are a useless unit.

In simple terms. People use hyperbole to drill concepts into stubborn peoples heads. If you demonstrate a solid understanding of competitive 40k. You get less of the commentary and more discourse.

I'm all for fun lists. Some of my most fun games have been with completely underpowered lists. But those lists don't need C&C.

And you'll have to dig REALLY deep in the guard codex to find something that this group hasn't explored and playtested. Try 5man veteran units with 3x melta guns and the drop troop doctrine instead of rough riders to deliver meltagun shots at close range to tanks. Monoliths don't let melta shots get an additional D6. So lascannons are your best bet of killing them.

Luckily for you, Cowoncrack, I am one of those people who does not run your bog standard infantry list. My IG are dedicated to my cat (who has a tendency to defend the property against wolves), and as such is very close combat based.

Depending on my mood I'll take ogryns, commissars, priests, psykers, rough riders, warrior weapons, hardened fighters, etc...

And I play to win.

Personally if you going to post something then you had better take the time to explain your post. Your feedback will depend on how you posted it.

SM 1850 RTT with just a list is going to get your standard Groupthink from the boards.

Now if you stop and took the time to explain some of the items you picked and why. Then you going to get outside of the groupthink and or the groupthink will just bye pass your post.

As far as the guard go, maybe you should start to look at other options. Also the area you play in will demand certain unit. If deep strike is a threat then your either needing to be mobile and or add in an element to cancel deep strike.

When I posted my hq slot I also took the time to explain what I was looking for in the unit. I had a few groupthinks post but over all they skipped that area because I explained why I wanted that in my army. My elited include ratlings of which almost everybody asked my why I would pick that unit. I explained that if a battle cannon hit, that the rats would be the extra ump to finish said unit off. I might get some flak for that last line but the proof is in the ratlings. 110 points for 36" range,

For once, i find myself disagreeing with Shep. (Don't kill me!)

People Take a unit of flash gits, for instance, may well know how much they suck, but want to use them anyway. Asking "What tactics work for this(crappy) unit is a valid question.

Yes I know i could spend points elsewhere, but I've made my choice, so what can I do with it.

"You can lose, noob. Just isn't a valid answer.

Telling people a unit may be a bad choice is fine, but still give them tips on how to use it.